The Refuge of the Toads

#65101

I do find it interesting the grounding the being brought up catholic gave me.

It made me conservative enough to have no regard for all the hippy-dippy newage / 'godspell' or wiccan paganism type shit (despite the compassion and maybe even good intentions of those involved).

But not conservative enough that I would go along with a lie for the sake of tradition (even it it provides a structure and stability for some peoples lives or society in general).

#65102

Does Greg Lake believe in Father Christmas now?

#65103

Have you organised a celebrity tontine?

#65104

deLurch wrote:I guess if any of them do question it but continue, they remember the clear children's stories of Jonah and the Whale, and Noah's Ark and let stuff slide as either poetic truth, or more fables but feel the religion overall is still important. I still have trouble believing all the people walking up to the alter really believe they are eating a dead guy. They just let it slide and don't think about it due to endless repetition.

The vast majority of religious people don't know much about their religion, and don't really care about their religion. For most religion is just something that is part of their culture, part of their community, and religious rites are a habit, just like the habit of washing hands or wiping your feet before you enter in a house. Dogmas, apologetics, even the basic teachings of their prophet of choice don't really matter.

What matter is "being a Good Christian/Muslim", i.e. listening to what your local priests say and nodding in approval, protesting the " modern degeneracy" when it's "in your face", doing a checklist of rites, prayers, travels to Mecca/Jubilees, charity (enough to look good or at least decent) and carrying on traditions, hoping that your children will also carry on those traditions and that they'll be well-behaved and won't cause trouble or dishonor to your family, that they won't waste your money or be single parents or be gay or leave your local church and that they'll support you when you're old.

Only a tiny fraction of religious people is really interested in apologetics or theology. Most religious people rarely even read their holy books, they have other people reading them for them and explaining them for them. Many polls show that many Christians believe that Mary is part of the Trinity (she isn't) or that many Muslims think that Jesus isn't a prophet in Islam (he is, and a fairly important one).

Most religious people are religious for cultural reasons and by force of habit. This doesn't mean that they can't whipped into a frenzy by their clerical classes when the need for outrage arises.

Many SJWs are similarly ignorant of postmodernism or the details of Critical Race Theory or even of the existence of Standpoint Theory (witness how ignorant Steve Shives looks in his video with King Crockoduck). Again this doesn't mean that they won't flip out and start twitter witch hunts or protests when the need arises.

Religions and ideologies are so powerful because they're closely related to in-group morality/out-group hostility. It's all a matter of identity, not of belief. Belief reinforces identity but isn't necessary, what is needed for religions and ideologies to have strong effect on people's behavior is a strong sense of community, of belonging to a group, the idea that the religion/ideology is the only way towards true morality and that anyone who disagrees is depraved, the fear of being attacked and a culture of perpetual victimhood.

If someone attacks the members of your family you don't stop to think about their reasons or about what's going on, you instinctively react to protect them. It's a powerful, primal urge that is evolutionary sound (animals who hesitated to defend their offspring lost more offspring).

If your community becomes your tribe, your "extended family" then once you perceive it's under attack you don't stop to understand why or what's really going on, you react on pure instinct. And so religious and ideological wars happen. The "enemies" are always nefarious, depraved conspirators ready to strike at a moment's notice so you might as well kill or enslave them or imprison them or silence them or get them fired before they do it to you. Also they're so depraved that they deserve punishment anyway.

Islam is the worse of all religions at the moment because its repetitive rites are so obsessive, its presence within certain cultures so ingrained in all aspects of society and the culture of muslim victimhood so strong and pervasive that muslims, especially young ones, see themselves as the only beacon of morality in a world that wants to destroy them and so they're authorized to do anything to kill, enslave or neutralize all potential "threats".

#65105

Kirbmarc interesting thoughts.

I'd be interested to know - do you think that religion can be distinguished from culture in any meaningful way?

#65106

nb I'm now crowdfunding a new xmas single: 'You'll be Dead for Christmas' as part of my 'Fuck the World' charity event.

Please donate below at my patreon

www.patreon.com/whyareyouevenreadingthisshit

#65107

Interesting story from Ireland.

There used to be a procedure called symphysiotomy, which involved cutting the cartilage of the pelvis, and another called pubiotomy, which involved sawing through the pubic bone, which were used in cases of obstructed labour, and were very painful and could on occasion lead to lasting disability. They kept using them in Ireland long after they had been abandoned in favour of caesarean section elsewhere in the developed world. This became a scandal, a compensation scheme was set up, overseen by a judge, Maureen Harding Clark, and almost 600 women applied. Spiked says that, according to the judge's report, almost a third of them had never had either of the procedures. "Listen and Believe" continues to cover itself in glory, doesn't it?

#65108

You would think people would have learned over time - it's not like voluntary false confessions don't have a long history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession#Causes

For example

Wiki wrote: In 1666, Robert Hubert confessed to starting the Great Fire of London by throwing a fire bomb through a bakery window. It was proven during his trial that he had not been in the country until two days after the start of the fire, he was never at any point near the bakery in question, the bakery did not actually have windows, and he was crippled and unable to throw a bomb. Nevertheless, as a foreigner, a Frenchman, and a Catholic, Hubert was a perfect scapegoat. Ever maintaining his guilt, Hubert was brought to trial, found guilty, and duly executed by hanging.

But then he was catholic so must have been guilty of something.

#65109

I missed the 1000th page. Congrats, Kiwi on scoring the big one.

#65110

MarcusAu wrote:Kirbmarc interesting thoughts.

I'd be interested to know - do you think that religion can be distinguished from culture in any meaningful way?

It depends on what you call "religion". Rites, ceremonies, community gatherings, prayers, preaching, rules for everyday life and attitudes towards the world are where religion is basically culture with a god/gods as its assumed linchpin, so I don't think that this part of religion can be really distinguished from culture in any meaningful way.

This doesn't mean that it cannot be criticized or mock or parodied. "It's just part of my culture" isn't an excuse. However it's hard to criticize it without creating outrages about attacks on people's ways of life and on their "identity". It's nearly impossible to do it in a society where group identity are celebrated as something positive and used for political means ("identity politics").

This is what we do here on the Slymepit: we criticize, mock, satirize and expose SJW culture and its flaws.

Theology, interpretations and apologetics, on the other hand, are the realm of intellectuals, of little interest to the common folk but of great interest to various élites which seek to justify their ideas on the basis of holy books or of the existence of a "god". I don't think that this more intellectual aspect of religion is part of the culture of most religious people, it's part of philosophy or history (in case of historical apologetics) or textual criticism and usually hotly debated upon by philosophers. I think that atheist philosopher should engage theology and apologetics just like non-atheist philosphers do.

Many already do. Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker have successfully at the very least challenged some traditional tenets of theology, and Bart Ehrman has challenged the usual arguments of Christian apologetics about the gospels. And of course Trickie Dickie tried to join the fun, but he's too much of a narcissistic windbag to write anything of value.

I think that the same thing needs to happen with islam. We need atheists or simply secularists/modernists who challenge muslim theology or the apologetic interpretations of the Quran. The big problems with this are that if you try to critically approach islam as an atheist/secularist the conservative muslims want your head and the regressive left calls you a racist warmonger (even if you're a former muslim).

Hell, for that matter I think that we need some prominent non-SJW, non-postmodern philosophers who criticize that philosophical basis of SJW ideology, like Standpoint Theory or the theory of reality as a social construct. We need a cogent and strident philosophical analysis and criticism of "sacred cows" of postmodernism like Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, Lacan, and more specifically of feminists/SJWs like Patricia Hill Collins, Dorothy Edith Smith or Kimberlé Crenshaw.

I think that we need more actual freedom of thought and diversity of opinions in philosophy, in the humanities and in the social sciences, especially at an academic level. We need to remove the stigmas that the SJWs/Regressives have created on ideas like environmental determinism or evolutionary psychology or in general the role of science in defining philosophical questions. The divorce of science and philosophy is a loss for both. Philosophy isn't all dependent on science, but it needs to be informed by it.

Post-modernism and the philosopher's rejection of science and of the values of the Enlightenment have harmed both philosophy and the social sciences, and in an indirect way politics and society as a whole.

TL;DR: Just like New Atheism/the Secularism Movement was a cultural movement but needed and still needs atheist/secularist philosophers and Bible scholars there needs to be a version of New Atheism for islam and a version of the Slymepit/GamerGate (classical liberalism) in philosophy and academia.

#65111

I think that cultural criticism in general, and of post-modernism in particular, is starting to happen (as you probably already know) - for instance here is Gad Saad's latest interview:

[youtube][/youtube]

And for another take on slightly related issues - Dr Randomercam reviews the BAM! (Being A Man) conference that was recently on in London. I've not watching the whole thing yet (it seems particularly cringey) - but it was organised by feminists, who obviously see themselves as the gatekeepers as to what is 'acceptable' male behaviour. (ie it's a series of lectures or panel discussions, not debates).

[youtube][/youtube]

#65112

katamari Damassi wrote:I guess my point was: If racism equals prejudice plus power, then I can't be racist because I have no power.

A few times in conversation with sjw friends, I have proposed that as the product of a very poor working-class family that my stealing from middle-class people should not be considered theft because Theft = taking possessions + power .
Surprisingly enough they don't go for it and suddenly prefer when terms describe a discreet behaviour and not a loop of clauses.

#65113

MarcusAu wrote:I think that cultural criticism in general, and of post-modernism in particular, is starting to happen (as you probably already know) - for instance here is Gad Saad's latest interview:

[.youtube][/youtube]

I know of Gad Saad and I think he's a pretty great start. But he's just the start, more needs to be done, especially by professional philosophers. Massimo Pigliucci could do a lot of good work if he pulled his head of his ass and stopped arguing with ad hom and arguments by assertion in favor of po-mo SJW ideas which contrast deeply with some of his other assumptions just to be "on the right side of history".

I was really disappointed when he decided to side with Steven Novella and the blackballing of Dawkins without even trying to explain why the "offending feminist/islamist" video was "racist and misogynistic" and instead took the (very much anti-rational) position of arguing that if you don't see the racism and misogyny in the video then you're the problem. I also was baffled by his authoritarian, Scientology-like policy of "abstaining from controversial jokes and satire for my moral health", especially since he was a critic of moral absolutism when it was the religious who pushed for it.

There's too much virtue-signalling in academia. I understand that many academics are afraid of being fired or suspended for offending the perpetually offended, but now isn't the time to be cowards. The SJW infiltration of academia needs to be criticized and challenged just like any other authoritarian gag on freedom of thought in a university setting.

#65114

Transtrender Milo posted this video. Lesbians are trying to make Chicago Boys Town, less about gay men and more about women, because men must not have anything for themselves, and creating your own space is too hard.
[youtube][/youtube]

#65115

Boy's Town is gay?

Did Spencer Tracy know about this?

#65116

Lsuoma wrote:Does Greg Lake believe in Father Christmas now?

He could have tried to hang on for another couple of weeks.... ;)

Anyway, The Commander still has a £100 bet at odds of 150/1 that NODDY HOLDER will die on Christmas Day. Bastard bookies wouldn't give me 365/1, not even Bet365. The tight shitstains.

[youtube][/youtube]

#65117

katamari Damassi wrote:Transtrender Milo posted this video. Lesbians are trying to make Chicago Boys Town, less about gay men and more about women, because men must not have anything for themselves, and creating your own space is too hard.
[youtube][/youtube]

Yeah I can definitely see why it's important that the first time I've ever heard of 'boys town' it's in reference to a project called 'girls in boys town'.
Are these people the same ones that argue it's fine for someone to have a girls-only group? Can we at least have a consistent stance?

#65118

rayshul wrote:Just saw a video of Canada's Prime Fuckwit crying while talking to Syrians and I don't know I feel real embarrassed for Canada right now

I understand y'all wanted change and someone with nice hair but fuck me what the fuck is that thing

A Fucking Leaf.

The Day Of The Rake can't come soon enough.

#65119

re Boys Town

It will be interesting to see what develops from this - it sounds like (male) gay culture has gone from a subculture (pre 1960s) to an outright culture (from the 1970s on) and will now have to go back underground.

I guess if a male can be a bigot for not wanting to have sex with a transgender person - a gay male could also be classed as a misogynist for not wanting to sleep with a woman.

I thought gay male culture was tolerant enough of heterosexual woman (aka Fag Hags) but never had much in common with the Dykes.

But that's just my outside impressions - I don't even speak bona polari.

[youtube][/youtube]

#65120

MarcusAu wrote:re Boys Town

It will be interesting to see what develops from this - it sounds like (male) gay culture has gone from a subculture (pre 1960s) to an outright culture (from the 1970s on) and will now have to go back underground.

I guess if a male can be a bigot for not wanting to have sex with a transgender person - a gay male could also be classed as a misogynist for not wanting to sleep with a woman.

I thought gay male culture was tolerant enough of heterosexual woman (aka Fag Hags) but never had much in common with the Dykes.

But that's just my outside impressions - I don't even speak bona polari.

[youtube][/youtube]

Oh, Man - Julian and Sandy! If anyone wants MP3s of all of J&S let me know. I'll shoot you a link.

#65121

What else do you have - Round the Horne? Much Binding in the Marsh?

#65122

MarcusAu wrote:What else do you have - Round the Horne? Much Binding in the Marsh?

I think I have all of Round the Horne, but unfortunately virtually of of Much Binding is no longer extant as far as I know.

I have five or six episodes, but have never managed to find more :-(

You can get all of (I think...) RtH here: https://archive.org/details/RoundTheHorne

and most of Much Binding here: https://archive.org/search.php?query=mu ... he%20marsh

#65123

MarcusAu wrote:
I thought gay male culture was tolerant enough of heterosexual woman (aka Fag Hags) but never had much in common with the Dykes.

Dude, even bisexual women find it hard to tolerate dykes! I don't know why more dykes don't get on with straight men as both seem obsessed with football and wrestling. =P

But seriously, most gay men I know don't fit the typical gay stereo type and tend to hate gays that do. They are just as likely to cringe at flaming faggots as the rest of us, they find most dykes to have no sense of humour and wonder what LGB has to do with T or any other letters.

FYI, fag-hags prefer to be known as fruit-flies. Although from my observations it is homosexuals who are attracted to breasts.

#65124

DrokkIt wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:I guess my point was: If racism equals prejudice plus power, then I can't be racist because I have no power.

A few times in conversation with sjw friends, I have proposed that as the product of a very poor working-class family that my stealing from middle-class people should not be considered theft because Theft = taking possessions + power .
Surprisingly enough they don't go for it and suddenly prefer when terms describe a discreet behaviour and not a loop of clauses.

One of the more progressive SJWs, FTB blogger Great American Satan opines that things have changed now that Trump has introduced fascism to the US and and taking from the privileged and giving to the unprivileged (himself) is now on the table.

Illegal Actions Will Be Necessary
As Caine reports, there are already attempts to take away our legal right to protest. That doesn’t mean protest will be impossible, only that you will be more likely to be shot or arrested for it. There are lots of things we will have to do under trumpence that are or will become illegal. Interfering with immigration officers, recording racist police murdering people, protesting in hundreds of ways, stealing to feed and clothe the needy (no doubt including many of ourselves), possibly hacking communications to discover and reveal evil government actions to the people, so on. Not to sound apocalyptic – a lot of this stuff can be pretty low key. Are you prepared to risk becoming slave labor for the prison industrial complex? Not sure if I am yet, but it may get to where I don’t even have a choice. Many people have already been there.

#65125

DrokkIt wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:I guess my point was: If racism equals prejudice plus power, then I can't be racist because I have no power.

A few times in conversation with sjw friends, I have proposed that as the product of a very poor working-class family that my stealing from middle-class people should not be considered theft because Theft = taking possessions + power .
Surprisingly enough they don't go for it and suddenly prefer when terms describe a discreet behaviour and not a loop of clauses.

Satire is the only appropriate response to that kind of lunacy.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaemb ... pg?w=800&h

#65126

[youtube][/youtube]

#65127

Thanks VC.

I had a theory about the (now somewhat old fashioned) gay stereotype. Mostly that it was formed by the hetero's impression of gay men in a time when being gay was frowned upon (to say the least), if not outright illegal.

So, any gay male that could pass for straight obviously would - and those that did not (or were not able to) were that much more visible.

#65128

I'm pretty conversant in polari. There's a whole field of linguistics known as lavender linguistics that I read up on when I studied sociolinguistics.

I've always thought anthropologists looking for evidence in support of the Sapir-Whorf hulypothesis should give South American Indians a rest and troll around with ageing queens.

#65129

Kirbmarc wrote:
Suet Cardigan wrote:
Peezus:
< A load of shite>
Over 100 women in that march were hospitalized for injuries they received from harassing men.* But Shermer accepts Sommers’ claim that there is no patriarchy, women aren’t in any way oppressed?
<A load more shite>
PZ has convinced me. The patriarchy is real. The fact that some women in a protest from 100 years ago were injured by men proves that patriarchy exists. No men on protests have ever suffered violence at all.

Students from the Maryland Agricultural College formed a human shield to protect the women, but that was just benevolent sexism i.e. patriarchy again. The chief of police was fired due to the lack of police protection for the women, but ignore that.

Patriarchy is real. Case closed.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 36ee38.jpg

* That sounds like the women were the ones doing the harassing.
PeeZie can't let it go, because if people like Shermer ruin the narrative that anyone who's against radfems and SJWs is a misogynistic monster and probably a Nazi then the SJWs are out of a job. And so lies, damned lies and distortions.

The SJW narrative is moronic. If scrutinized rationally it falls apart more quickly than Scientology myths. Standpoint theory, Patriarchy microaggression and other po-mo inventions (assemblages, rhizomes, phallocentrism, etc.) are pure and utter nonsense which has been proven to be nonsense since the Sokal affair (if not even before).

In order to carry on it needs to demonize every critic, to employ motte-and-bailey techniques about the concepts of "equality", "feminism", "equal rights", to deliberately ignore context, nuance, reason or evidence in order to repeat slogans and foster a "with us or against us" mentality.

What gets me is why even 'old school lefties' and 'classic liberals' are surprised by this outcome. It is a feature of your ideology not a bug. The 'gibsmedat' part of your politics have to keep pushing the envelope and become more authoritarian and violent to get the outcome they want. In a democracy the do have to reach critical mass before going all out to crush 35 - 40% conservative part of a given population. Also having access to the Internet helped against a bias MSM, The regressive left/liberals had to go all out and it is looking like they jumped the gun. It was a close call though that just makes the salt more delicious.

#65130

Tonight I am culturally appropriating but I am not sure who I am appropriating from.

Japanese whiskey?

Christmas pudding spring rolls?

#65131

DrokkIt wrote:A few times in conversation with sjw friends, I have proposed that as the product of a very poor working-class family that my stealing from middle-class people should not be considered theft because Theft = taking possessions + power .
Surprisingly enough they don't go for it and suddenly prefer when terms describe a discreet behaviour and not a loop of clauses.

It would be absolutely marvelous if someone like Elfwick (I or II) could memify this: Poor people can't steal, because theft = taking possessions + power.

#65132

jet_lagg wrote:Satire is the only appropriate response to that kind of lunacy.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaemb ... pg?w=800&h

~~Sauce~~ Source?

#65133

VickyCaramel wrote:FYI, fag-hags prefer to be known as fruit-flies. Although from my observations it is homosexuals who are attracted to breasts.

I can't remember why, I let the label "fag-hag" slip out in a conversation with my daughter who has several gay male friends. She said that both she and the guys refer to themselves as "panty-shields." The guys are panty-shields for her in that they keep straight males away. She is a panty-shield for them in that her presence keeps the parents of the gay males from getting their homophobic panties in a bunch.

I had to hand that round to her.

#65134

I'm considering changing my Twitter number to LittleBoyWilly to discourage future employers from Googling my social media history.

#65135

jet_lagg wrote:
Satire is the only appropriate response to that kind of lunacy.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaemb ... pg?w=800&h

This is superb.

#65136

Name, not fucking number.

Japanese whiskey.

#65137

Just drunk a cocktail it took me two hands to lift.

#65138

DaveDodo007 wrote:What gets me is why even 'old school lefties' and 'classic liberals' are surprised by this outcome. It is a feature of your ideology not a bug. The 'gibsmedat' part of your politics have to keep pushing the envelope and become more authoritarian and violent to get the outcome they want. In a democracy the do have to reach critical mass before going all out to crush 35 - 40% conservative part of a given population. Also having access to the Internet helped against a bias MSM, The regressive left/liberals had to go all out and it is looking like they jumped the gun. It was a close call though that just makes the salt more delicious.

I strongly disagree. I don't think that classical liberalism has anything to do with SJWs, no more than classical conservatism has anything to do with fascism or nazism. The defense of equality before the law (equal right to vote for everyone who's an adult), free speech, habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, equal access to facilities, desegregation, equal access to the job market etc. are classical liberal values, not "gibsmedat"* (welfare/government handouts, for those who don't know, like me until a couple of minutes ago).

Some kind of safety net for people who actually need it, to put people back on their feet so that they can have access to the job market has been recognized as a value even by Austrian School economists like Friedrich von Hayek. Also unions and free organization of workers are a staple of leftist classical liberalism: limiting their powers is a conservative move, prohibiting them altogether is right-wing authoritarianism. And fighting crony capitalism and the extension of copyright to excessive levels is a libertarian battle. Even Ron Paul, as far from a "gibsmedat" idea of welfare as anyone can possibly be, has recognized the dangers of corporatism.

SJWs are neo-marxists, and they share the problems of old marxism plus a slew of new identity politics bullshit.

*Also, incidentally, looking for "gibsmedat" on google leads to several "shitskin" and "chimpmania" links and to the Daily Stormer. Lovely. Is the word even used outside of actually racist (not SJW racist)/white supremacist websites?

#65139

Shatterface wrote:Tonight I am culturally appropriating but I am not sure who I am appropriating from.

Japanese whiskey?

Christmas pudding spring rolls?

Well as Xmas was appropriated from the Germanics - it sounds like a fairly Axis-centric meal.

I imagine you had some garibaldi biscuits in mind for desert - but for whatever reason it didn't work out.

#65140

katamari Damassi wrote:When I converse with SJW's I simply replace the term racism with prejudice or bigotry, only because I don't want the argument derailed by semantics, but I've never understood the SJW definition of racism as "power + prejudice". I'm white, but I'm just Joe Schmoe. What power do I have? I can't hire or fire anyone. My vote only counts as much as anyone else's. What power over anyone do I have?

Totally agree. I tend to do the same thing. The concept of racism being solely a white problem has been around here since at least the 1980's when a prominent academic (Ranginui Walker, for anyone who wants to look him up) famously declared that 'racism is a pakeha disease' pakeha being people of European descent.

In Nz, SJWism doesn't seem to have taken hold to the same extent as it has elsewhere; I suspect that's because Maori have cornered the market on victim cred, no matter how privileged they are. In fact, the more privilege, the more victim status. Many ordinary Maori have no time for academics and politicians who bleat about 'Maori bashing' but plenty of whites go along for the ride.

#65141

feathers wrote:
jet_lagg wrote:Satire is the only appropriate response to that kind of lunacy.

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaemb ... pg?w=800&h
~~Sauce~~ Source?

I don't remember where I first read it. I just googled the first line and found someone who had posted the image to reddit years ago. It's supposed to be satire of a similar "rape = consensual sex + power" argument which itself may or may not have been satire. Poe's law you know.

#65142

Nearly twice as many Republicans think the free market has failed compare to Democrats:

Do Left and Right mean anything at all now?

#65143

biblia wrote:
katamari Damassi wrote:When I converse with SJW's I simply replace the term racism with prejudice or bigotry, only because I don't want the argument derailed by semantics, but I've never understood the SJW definition of racism as "power + prejudice". I'm white, but I'm just Joe Schmoe. What power do I have? I can't hire or fire anyone. My vote only counts as much as anyone else's. What power over anyone do I have?
Totally agree. I tend to do the same thing. The concept of racism being solely a white problem has been around here since at least the 1980's when a prominent academic (Ranginui Walker, for anyone who wants to look him up) famously declared that 'racism is a pakeha disease' pakeha being people of European descent.

In Nz, SJWism doesn't seem to have taken hold to the same extent as it has elsewhere; I suspect that's because Maori have cornered the market on victim cred, no matter how privileged they are. In fact, the more privilege, the more victim status. Many ordinary Maori have no time for academics and politicians who bleat about 'Maori bashing' but plenty of whites go along for the ride.

The funny thing about the "racism is white/pakeha disease" line is that it's a racist claim, in that it ascribes a negative trait to an entire race.

#65144

There are some that say that the term 'pakeha' is inherently offensive.

Myself - I don't give a hangi for the treaty of Waitangi.

#65145

MarcusAu wrote:
Shatterface wrote:Tonight I am culturally appropriating but I am not sure who I am appropriating from.

Japanese whiskey?

Christmas pudding spring rolls?

Well as Xmas was appropriated from the Germanics - it sounds like a fairly Axis-centric meal.

Looking at the grouting in the toilets I can definitely make out a swastika.

At least they don't do pizza.

#65146

[youtube][/youtube]

#65147

John Glenn is dead.

#RightStuff #Fuck2016

#65148

Shatterface wrote:Nearly twice as many Republicans think the free market has failed compare to Democrats:

Do Left and Right mean anything at all now?

No, and they haven't for quite a long time. The main three political axes right now are between libertarian/authoritarian, individualism/identity politics (where there are non-white-christian-cis-het identity politics and white-christian-cis-het identity politics) and regulated/open borders.

SJWs are authoritarian/identity politics/open borders, "non-SJW leftists" are either libertarian/identity politics/open borders (quite rare since libertarian idea and identity politics rarely mix) or, more frequently, libertarian/individualism/open borders, "classic liberals" like Sargon of Akkad are libertarian/individualism/regulated borders, average GOP conservatives are libertarian/identity politics/regulated borders and the alt-right is authoritarian/identity politics/regulated borders.

#65149

Re. religion, again I offer the esteemed assembly my theory, which is mine, about religion: that it's ok if you LARP it.

You can sort of detach the cognitive (in the sense of evidence-based) element from religion to some extent, and have it be an over-arching philosophical theory that you punt, that you're aware of plumping for just because it appeals to you. i.e. it's openly speculative (because it pertains to stuff that's as-yet-unverifiable, a particular position on the "deep questions"), but you're going for it as the truth.

That way, you can get the hindbrain satisfaction, the social togetherness (under the umbrella of a shared over-arching philosophical theory), the ritual, but without feeling the need to indulge cognitive bias.

Like immersion in a videogame, like being fan of a sports team, etc., etc. A degree of seriousness-for-fun, mixed with sufficient detachment-at-need.

I would content that this is actually how most intelligent people who were forced, in the time of religion's ascendancy, to virtue-signal asssent in order to keep their jobs, etc., in the same way that the middle-classes virtue-signal their assent to the SJW-ism today, for fear of social shaming. When you had to believe or at the very least be seen to believe (even if secretly, as a rational person, deep down, you didn't believe it all that hard, and even had some doubts you kept to yourself), you could sort of make-believe, i.e. make the best of a bad job, and get the social and ritual benefits, and some degree of peace of mind.

For there is certainly some social and psychological benefit from religion - i.e. from groups of people having shared, over-arching highest abstractions. It gives life a bit of pep, to carry you through the day, and induces good manners and gives you some guard-rails for living a virtuous life.

#65150

Aneris wrote:
Wild Zontargs wrote:Theses for a Progressive Reformation: part 1
It becomes increasingly clear as time goes on that we need a progressive reformation.

Wait a minute. Why just the progressives? Why not the conservatives? Anyone wanting a conservative reformation certainly has my blessing and best wishes. Really. Good luck with that. But that's not my thing. I'll stick to the lefties for now, because that's my world. That's what I'm familiar with. Plus, I think the left really should strive for a higher standard of intellectual and moral honesty. To be honest, I expect dishonesty and opportunism from the right. Rationalizing abuses of power and obscene concentrations of wealth and denying the harmful effects of these is a major aspect of what right wing politics has been demonstrably about for as long as I can remember. Witnessing the waxing of dishonesty and opportunism of liberal activism over the last several years has been especially unnerving.

So without further ado then, here are my theses:
<snip>
They're good! My only critique, after a first reading is that it's more a collection of points, which don't address deeper reasons which generate the problems that are being criticized, e.g. why identity politics (as conceived by the faction) is wrong etc.

Identity politics is wrong because the people who preach it assume white people are either immune to it or so full of white guilt that they will embrace it. So it works for some but mostly just makes white people focus on their race/identity as well. Multicultural societies have to be race/colour blind and focus on character like MLK preached. It will simple produce a racist/segregationalist attitude and society that it pretends to oppose.

#65151

Shatterface wrote:
MarcusAu wrote:
Shatterface wrote:Tonight I am culturally appropriating but I am not sure who I am appropriating from.

Japanese whiskey?

Christmas pudding spring rolls?

Well as Xmas was appropriated from the Germanics - it sounds like a fairly Axis-centric meal.
Looking at the grouting in the toilets I can definitely make out a swastika.

At least they don't do pizza.

Obviously, THEY don't want you to learn about this, so I need to try again:
[youtube][/youtube]

#65152

Religon as LARP is too close to CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) for me.

Or even the other CBT.

#65153

feathers wrote:
HoneyWagon wrote:Reminder...Danielle is a young 32 years young
http://i.imgur.com/gvcgZqZ.png

https://twitter.com/daniellemuscato/sta ... 3317177344
So Danielle is going to pave the way for men wearing tights and a skirt?

After all, it's not unheard of in history.

In his defense, any clothes Danielle wears become tights.

#65154

MarcusAu wrote:
Hunt wrote:Catholics have always struck me as the nuttiest of Christians. People go on and on about the craziness of Mormons. All the Mormons I've met seem to live their lives pretending they don't know the tenets (or tenants, if you prefer) of their own religion, but Catholics FUCKING BELIEVE IT, and parade it and think they've got actual intellectual bona fides backing them up.
As a former catholic - I don't think that most believe it. For instance, many will go against the church's teaching on abortion when it comes to the crunch. They will go along each Sunday - or if that is too much on Easter & Xmas - and send their kids to the local religious school, but apart from that it is mostly a tribal identity (at least in the West / 1st world).

it's set up so that the bible is interpreted by the local priest, and though families may have a copy they don't read it day to day. Probably preferring apologist literature instead - if they are going to read anything. I think there is something to the woman involved that keep the system running (or at least they did in the past) - ie encouraging church going and other traditions.

Which is why they don't particularly like being backed into a corner and defend their actual beliefs - as it is all rather quantum. For instance - technically they believe in transubstantiation (the host actually transforming into JC) - and that it is not just a metaphor. They can't really deny it as the principle was important enough to die (or kill) over in the past.

Also, they have (or used to have) an interest in keeping the old school conservatives (ie pre Vactican II) and the newer flock united, and this is paradoxically easier to do when people assume that they have something in common, but don't have to know precisely what the details are.

Though they don't consciously formulate it as such - but in effect it's Orthodoxy (belief) vs Orthopraxy (action).

I guess I don't think it as weird as it is familiar to me - I find Gnosticism more interesting - as it has some of the same roots but went in a completely different direction with it - showing that people can believe everything.

Said it better than what I was trying to write (and gave up on) The practising Catholics I know or work with here in Nz come from many ethnic backgrounds and bring many different perspectives. What it gives us, even me the apostate, is a shared cultural indentity.

#65155

feathers wrote:
VickyCaramel wrote:So if you are a white male facing down a rabid feminist, can't you just claim that you identify as a woman, and use your fat bearded lady status to catapult yourself to the top of the progressive stack?
Given the postmodernist creed as I've come to know it, it should be perfectly acceptable to claim that you have a fluctuating gender identity- lgtbqw where w is for weathercock- which manifests itself in you changing gender in the middle of a conversation.

#Whetherornotcock

#65156

Before we leave Much Binding forever - here's a clip I found of Richard Murdoch - showing what sort of thing the Pre-Monty Python-ists got up to in bygone days.

[youtube][/youtube]

#65157

Ironically i an the only person at my table who isn't on alcohol awareness training tonorrow.

#65158

gurugeorge wrote:For there is certainly some social and psychological benefit from religion - i.e. from groups of people having shared, over-arching highest abstractions. It gives life a bit of pep, to carry you through the day, and induces good manners and gives you some guard-rails for living a virtuous life.

The problem is that it's actually easier than you'd expect to jump from private belief of religious as some form of self-help (which, as you write, is actually fine, even beneficial to some, although not to everyone) to imposing your self-help onto others (which really isn't). Secular self-help/moralizing groups are also overbearing and overstepping boundaries all the time.

It's very easy for people for whom religion or any other form of self-help "works" to become moral busybodies and obnoxious evangelists of the "spiritual fitness regime" that "worked wonders for me!" This is why I think secularism is thoroughly needed: you have to understand that your self-help regime isn't a moral imperative to be turned into a law to make people "happy" and "fit" whether they like it or not. You have to leave people room to live what you consider "spiritually unhealthy" lives, or to choose other fitness regimes that you dislike.

If you like tennis so much that you practice it twice a week with your friends, go to tournaments, celebrate your victories, see it on TV, and say that it gives meaning to your life, it's all fine, even though I really hate tennis and think it's dull and boring. If you go around shoving tennis rackets in people's hands, campaigning for forcing people to wear tennis shoes all the time or for not giving funds to cycling or rafting or football or baseball, and forcing everyone not to advertise the potential dangers of tennis or not to make fun of tennis, and lobbying to get all the government funds assigned to sports destined to tennis, that's not so fine. The same is true for religion.

The problems that I have with religion are with overenthusiastic and authoritarian god fanboys and with the lobbies and special interest (and élites) who support them.

#65159

biblia wrote:
Said it better than what I was trying to write (and gave up on) The practising Catholics I know or work with here in Nz come from many ethnic backgrounds and bring many different perspectives. What it gives us, even me the apostate, is a shared cultural indentity.

It's based on my experience growing up in a Irish catholic family in NZ.

Perhaps I could be even more controversial and say that there is probably not that much difference in the day to day practice of religion between modern day catholics and protestants.

#65160

Wow - I never thought that Kirbmarc would turn out to be an atennis-ist bigot.